About your Search

20130829
20130829
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
by liberals during the bush years, he has got to. george bush got resolution 1441 from the united nations that could at least make the plausible case, meant, invading iraq was legal under international law. if he doesn't get approval from the u.n. security council then barack obama will be violating international law. it will be an illegal act of war. and, that doesn't mean i'm against it necessarily or that i think president obama should care one wit about approval from the u.n. i don't think the united states should care about the u.n. at all. i think that the idea that somehow we give a veto to china and russia about the morality or efficacy or legitimacy of our foreign policy is bizarre but that is a system that liberals have been championing for a very, very long time including barack obama and the double-standards here are, you know, are just so daunting for the president, given what he had said about, you know, foreign policy when he was a candidate. that he is now going back on all of it and he is in a real pickle. alisyn: well, that is exactly right. so why would the president ac
of george bush for doing what we did in iraq. now, that's inconsistentents now. it's really baffling to see the people on the left just rallying behind president obama, yeah, go ahead. fire the missiles! we're with you. but the people who were so antiwar and anti-conflict in the past, now they're ready to go without even knowing where we're going. >> gretchen: so many unanswered questions still today. but one of the big questions this morning is what kind of chemical weapons does syria actually have? what evidence does the united states have? heather nauert is here to break it down. >> we are learning interesting information this morning. the syrian deputy foreign minister telling reporters that sarin gas was used in several parts of the country, but he claims the rebels were the ones responsible for that attack. this assertion is not banged by the us -- backed by the united states which believes the syrian government unleashed the attack and is the party responsible. but what is interesting about this statement, gretchen, is that it is the first time we're hearing from a syrian government
was a u.s. senator. flashback to 2007. >> george bush and dick cheney must hear loud and clear from the american people and the congress, you do not have our support and you do not have our authorization to launch another war. >> i want to make it clear. i want to make it clear to the president. if he takes this nation to war in iran, without congressional approval, i will make it my business to impeach him. >> obama didn't know when he was criticizing bush. he didn't know how the world worked. he didn't know there were a bunch of bad guys. demanding that bush go through congress. demanding that bush go through the united nations. demanding that there be a coast guard. >> the war drums continue to beat louder and louder in the middle east. >> u.s. navy warships are standing by. they are waiting order from the president. >> the syrians have said that if struck, they will counter strike and downer attack on tel aviv. a city which they slay burn. >> it is pretty obvious the syrian army used chemical weapon. the president called that a red line so he feels we have to retaliate. >> what
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)